massage and bodywork professionals
a community of practitioners
So, is the wolf pack satisfied?
You've driven him off. The Wolf Pack can celebrate.
But before you all start shaking each others paws (or doing whatever else - Pulp Fiction fans can smile at The Wolf reference ) there's something that I'll say about that.
First off, I'm amazed that he stuck around so long. In fact, it occured to me today that the arguments against him keep repeating over and over and over, it's a wonder he didn't bail way before now.
To recap the arguments put to him:
1. Who is he to be an authority?
He repeatedly said he isn't. Any scientist would say that there is not authority in science. But apparently some people on here *need* authority figures.
2. He is against energy work (and therefore is regarded as the Devil incarnate).
He has an opinion on it, he expressed it, he gave his reasons for his opinion and time and time again he is regarded as the Anti-Christ for having that opinion, which have been formed from what he knows from the data provided by science. Apparently his opinion on it resonated through every thread, even when the threads were initially on a subject that had nothing to do with energy work - he was hounded for it.
3. He is narrow-minded because of his opinion on energy work
This one blows my mind. He has contributed a lot to massage therapy research (even though some who are obviously not familiar with his work would argue that point) and he has never been thanked for it by anyone on this site (If I'm wrong correct me) This "narrow-minded argument" has been thrown at him when it is blatantly obvious that the ones throwing the argument have made no attempt to understand why he has reached his conclusions. If there was any attempt to do that, meaningful discussions besides "Science isn't there yet" and the same ol' weak arguments wouldn't have been popping up again and again. And people not understanding *why* the "science isn't there yet* argument and those other ones are weak is pretty clear. It amazes me that this total lack of an attempt to understand another person's point of view and why they have reached it can be held by any massage therapist. I had thought that we were empathetic people and the basis of empathy is understanding. But apparently I was wrong.
4. A new one thrown at him was that science and engineering are not the same. As an ex-software engineer who has a Masters in Computer Science I can say that before I knew the guy that you've just forced out, I didn't know the difference between external and internal validity and it's importance in the linkage between cause and effect. After being aware of my ignorance he pointed me towards the right books (both he and Kim Goral did this, who has probably given up on this site too) to get myself a bit more educated. He gets tackled on some study that was slammed because it didn't reflect the real world and he had mentioned internal validity. The discussion could have been about that, but no, it didn't reflect what we wanted to see and it didn't tell us what we wanted to hear, he brought up internal validity and that was it - slam him.
Anyway, back to the engineer/science poke (on which there could be a debate, but who really cares?) This ex-engineer can state that there's a big difference between unveiling nature and using patterns from nature to build. The latter is easier. It's logical and good - it can be replicated, it's easily testable and it's much more easily critiqued. That's because the human element is taken out. But that's just an opinion and if anyone tackles me on it, I don't care. Opinions are like brown orifices - facts and data are quite nice some of the time.
I'm sure there are other things that I could bring up here, but there's probably no point. Those ones are the main ones. I've learned a lot from him - it's a pity others couldn't see the benefit from him being on here.
Anyway, I'd just like to say that before anyone regards him leaving here as a victory and "Yay for us - we win!", I'd just like to say that yes, it is a victory - a victory for ignorance, intolerance and a lack of understanding.
Way to go.
Views: 286
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Gordon J. Wallis on
-
Sadly, we arnt one...Like the Democrats vs. Republicans, divided like the rest of the world. We are the world...We blame everyone else. Yet we all create it....Im a massage therapist...But I have a very hard time hanging out with other massage therapists? But Im a nice man. Go figure?????
-
Permalink Reply by Stephen Jeffrey on
-
Hi Vlad, you said
I think he liked to challenge - yeah. But I think that's his way of trying to get us to think.
I disagree with that statement, Chris seemed to enjoy confrontation, the way he replied too, or started discussion (energy work), was always angled towards "lively debate" to the point where I began to think the community on this site was being used as part of a phycology experiment.
Vlad, for some reason you did not post on this thread, http://www.massageprofessionals.com/forum/topics/stress-hormone-pro... so I assume you missed my attempts to generate interest in his work. At that time I very much enjoyed talking to Chris ( who is the only Professor I have ever had any contact with ) and I thought it was great he took the time to communicate with our community. Then he started the skeptical energy thread and dispite warnings from many that it was not a good idea, continued to post in a way that flamed the debate (and so did you and I ).
Although I personaly learned alot from handling the bitterness I felt towards Chris at that time. I hope we do not have to go through challenge's/experience like that on here over and over again, just to grow half an inch at a time as a profession, but recent threads indicate otherwise.
Our profession may have much to benifit from science/research but those promoting it to our community need to find a better way of communicating. IMO.
-
Permalink Reply by Laura Allen on
-
I was practicing energy work for five years before I started doing massage. Due to the influence of Christopher, Bodhi Haraldsson, and some of the other research-oriented minds I've encountered, I have leaned more towards evidence-based practice in the past couple of years...but I do not disparage energy workers because of the difficulties in "proving" that anything works. I can't prove the existence of a higher power, but I don't disparage those who believe in one.
I appreciate Christopher's point of view, and Vlad's, Ravensara's, and others who do have knowledge of science. I listen when they talk in the hope that some of their knowledge might rub off on me. I also know Mike Hinkle personally and he is one of the most tireless people I know when it comes to working for the good of massage therapists.He has done a lot of great things for our community. So have the others I just mentioned.
The personal attacks on here and the sniping and insulting has been distressing to me as I've stated many times. I'm not saying one is right or one is wrong or that one is guilty and the other is innocent. There has been a communication breakdown fueled by passion and personal belief systems. It's the human condition. Sad but true. I am personally sorry to see that Christopher has departed.
-
Permalink Reply by Ravensara Travillian on
-
Stephen:
I disagree with that statement, Chris seemed to enjoy confrontation, the way he replied too, or started discussion (energy work), was always angled towards "lively debate" to the point where I began to think the community on this site was being used as part of a phycology experiment.
So people whose communication style is something other than just always going along with the prevailing winds aren't welcome here? You realize what that means for all those lovely-sounding claims of diversity, tolerance, and so forth, right?
It means they're nothing more than lip service, and if you don't behave or think a certain way here, you get attacked. That is not how people who are secure in their own skin react to other people, even those with very different styles.
It wasn't an experiment, any more than any exchange of ideas in everyday life is an experiment. Every time you perform a treatment on a client, you test an idea. If that idea doesn't work, you drop it and move on to something else.
Chris and I were in effect testing the assumption that people at this site were open to new information, and to hearing what the facts had to say, and that they would listen with an open mind and integrate it with what they already knew to improve practice. It was the idea we were testing, not anyone here.
That assumption's been pretty thoroughly blown out of the water now, and since one of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result, I'm also going to find something more productive to do with my time.
Our profession may have much to benifit from science/research but those promoting it to our community need to find a better way of communicating. IMO.
When one side is bound and determined never to change their minds, neither the more gentle ways--which have been tried at length,as the record here and elsewhere shows--nor the confrontation is going to get any traction.
Laura: I know you are a good and kind person, who always sees the best in other people. My experience, however, is very different from yours. As much respect as I have for you, I cannot just take your word over my experience here.
I also know Mike Hinkle personally and he is one of the most tireless people I know when it comes to working for the good of massage therapists.
He also started the credential interrogation about where I live, how much experience I had, and so forth, continued by the Rev in a different thread, and by Boris' "if you would ever go into the clinic, Raven" condescension, the "Raven the cold clinician" b******* from Gary--I could go on and on, but there is no point. Nothing here is going to change.
Mike is not the massage border police, and I don't have to show him or anyone else my papers. No one else gets that credential checking here except me. It's just the same "you're not an MT, Chris" rubbish, except they can't really say that about me, so they can only try othering me and disparaging the experience I do have.
Besides, as I asked Nathan, if you reject Chris' input, because he's not an MT, why do you accept Candace Pert's as a biochemist (not an MT), or anyone else outside of massage, who says something you *want* to hear? Why the double standard?
*crickets chirping*
On the acupuncture thread, Mike stated categorically that he feels absolutely no responsibility for the validity of information he passes along to clients and other practitioners. I'm serious: that's an exact quote.
I cannot ethically be any part at all of an industry that holds an ethical position like that, without anyone pushing back.
Meanwhile, Boris loses his temper at the drop of a hat and accuses me of "dishonesty". Sure, he eventually took it back after an extended kabuki, and now he's acting all collegial, but this will happen again. I have absolutely no doubt.
This is not professional ethics and behavior, and I cannot be a part of it. So I will leave, too, and have nothing more to do with it.
I am satisfied that when the history of massage in this period is written, that I have publicly stood up for passing on valid information to clients, and that I had stood up to public bullying behavior. That's good enough for me.
You are a genuine and kind person, Laura, and you see good in everyone. But even though you vouch for them, I can't and won't take any more of this treatment from them in the name of a supposedly helping "profession". Since this type of behavior and attitudes about information are what this "professional" site is about, I will leave it to you all and I won't post here again.
I am grateful to Laura, Ty, Choice, and Vlad for calling out bad behavior. It is courageous and right, and I appreciate your doing so. But the calls for civility will fade, the cycle will repeat itself, and then everyone's back on the hamster wheel. It's boring, as well as anything else, and those biodiversity summits and refugee health fairs aren't going to organize themselves. Those are far better uses of my time than being stuck in the movie Groundhog Day.
Peace.
-
Permalink Reply by Vlad on
-
Well, there you have it. Another person that massage therapists could learn something from has come to the conclusion that being on here is a waste of time. Just to give you a smidgen of what we could have asked this lady about, here's a list of some magazine articles she has written (different from a research article - but most massage therapists don't know how to find and read them) for your perusal. It might be of interest to anyone who recognizes the need for why we need research.
The Need for Research Literacy
Understanding Scientific Results
Structure of a Research Article
Evaluating Accuracy of a Hypothesis
The Methods Section (of a research article)
Approaching Graphics, Avoiding Pitfalls
-
-
Also, from a personal perspective, I happen to agree with Raven on ethical responsibility. It's our ethical responsibility for us to tell the truth and acknowledge when science is showing us that something isn't working the way we thought (or was taught through tradition or otherwise). I mentioned the religion thing earlier because I've come to the conclusion that the *industry* has been steeped in a type of religion and *you're either with us or you're against us* mentality. I used to think that if everyone's eyes were open to looking at the evidence behind certain modalities then that would mean that most would no longer want to waste their time learning about them or would feel *weird* that they're promoting them (as I did), but I no longer think that way. I think most people like to hold on to them and they don't feel any ethical need to look at what the evidence shows - they'll just go by what their teachers say (or books or what's written on the web) and then they'll convince themselves that what they're seeing or feeling in their practice is something magical and good and that's all that matters. Oh well.
So I think the divorce will probably happen at some time - and that's a shame.
The fact that the sciency peeps have given up on this site is the first sign.
Just from the perspective of someone that has a spiritual belief also - I think God gave us those big lovely brains for a reason. We should aim to use them.
Oh - and Stephen - that's great that you put up a thread one time. Instead of jumping on him about the energy thing, maybe the odd question on here about research terminology, reasoning and the like might have taken the whole thing in a different direction. Who knows?
I'm off to work. I hope y'all have a good day!
-
-
Thanks for posting that list of Ravensara's articles! I will print them all out right now and share them with the masses!
-
Permalink Reply by Lee Edelberg on
-
Vlad,
Over and over science gets things wrong. I feel ethically responsible to tell the truth. I don't feel ethically bound to agree with (Western) science when it seems to contradict my views about something.
Cheers, Lee
Vlad said:.......... It's our ethical responsibility for us to tell the truth and acknowledge when science is showing us that something isn't working the way we thought (or was taught through tradition or otherwise).
-
Permalink Reply by Boris Prilutsky on
-
Hi Lee.
I personally wouldn't say:"Over and over science gets things wrong."but "wrong" it does happen. in general very difficult to disagree with your post and in particular in this discussion environment.this discussion as Vlad structure, leading to nowhere but to destructive arguments.Lee. In my opinion you brought good example that would be very healthy to discuss and I will be happy to participate but first I will reply to Vlad.Best wishes.
Boris
Lee Edelberg said:Vlad,
Over and over science gets things wrong. I feel ethically responsible to tell the truth. I don't feel ethically bound to agree with (Western) science when it seems to contradict my views about something.
Cheers, Lee
Vlad said:.......... It's our ethical responsibility for us to tell the truth and acknowledge when science is showing us that something isn't working the way we thought (or was taught through tradition or otherwise).
-
-
Lee,
Yes, I've heard the (Western) science can get it wrong line before. I've seen it addressed in a couple of books, but I can't remember if it was Goldacre or Specter or Singh or Gould that wrote about it the best, but yeah. It's not a new argument and I think a lot of people share your view, so you're not alone there.
By the way, science is science - is there such a thing as Northern science?
Since there doesn't seem much interest in science on this board and I've seen a little bit of evidence that people seem to gravitate to the *science* that backs their beliefs, do any of you believe in pseudoscience, or is that all just made up stuff by experimental purists?
I don't ever see or read the line "Pseudoscience can get it wrong". In fact, I wonder if people think such a thing exists, but a thread on this site lately made me think that it's highly unlikely that people know it when they see it (if they think that such a thing exists - I do, but that's just an opinion and if there's one thing I've learned, it's not to force my opinion on anyone else!).
Also, the
I see it, therefore it works. And it's a crock (or is it?)
I see it, therefore it works. And it's a crock (or is it?)
issue is all over the web.
Confirmation biases come into play in every aspect of our lives, and we're not even aware of it. "I want *information* that backs my belief, and I'll just ignore that other stuff that doesn't show me what I want to see"
It happens all the time.
Anyway, there is one thing that I'm pretty sure of. There is very little *evidence* on this site that people have been educated on just the basics of massage therapy research. If that were the case there would be cool discussions on Cherkin's low back pain protocols and the like. THAT, to me is the biggest issue that we have.
The debates are all over "you don't believe what I believe" and nothing is given to the common ground - looking at massage therapy research. Why is that? Well, I think it's because not many know how to interpret and critique it. But I also think that it's a sign of other things - possibly:
- I can't be bothered learning this since it's not *cool* enough
- It's too hard
- I can't be bothered thinking and figuring things out
- I already know all I need to know, thank you very much
- Oh, who wants to *read stuff* when we've got videos online?
- I'd like someone to sort through all this stuff and tell me what to think, please (i.e - I want authority figures)
- Who needs this stuff? My teachers have taught me all I need to know to be good at my job?- I don't want to look at it because it will take me out of my comfort zone and it might show me things that I don't want to see
There could be others, I dunno. I could go on about how much I've gained from basically fixing my ignorance on it to some degree, but I think it would be a waste of disk space.
This to me is the biggest ethical issue. People are not equipped with the basics in research literacy in MASSAGE THERAPY, OF THAT THERE IS NO DOUBT.
But, with regard to all that we have available to us, people are also not equipped with the skills to be well informed in order to make a fully informed choice with their education and there no time given at all (as far as I can tell) to the development of critical thinking skills.
If a therapist wants to study a modality, they should have the ability to find and critique all of the research that has been done on it before investing time and money into learning it and that is not happening. The way things are now we just have to go with what they are told and most of the time I believe it has to do with popularity - if a modality is popular and people *love it*, then we'll study it. And then we will go about convincing ourselves that *it works the way that we've been taught and all the claims are true*.
When they've studied it and they start providing it and dishing out the claims surrounding it, then it is *very* difficult to let go - especially if their clients believe those claims.
I know this because I went through it. To be honest, I was pissed off about the fact that I was not taught how to critique research OR integrate it into my work, but that's just me - it doesn't look like anyone else on here is much bothered about it, so that's OK.
Anyway, I was going to put up a photo of Clint Eastwood here with a word bubble saying "The way I figure it, there ain't no such thing as "Western" science, just "Spaghetti Western" science" but I'm tired and I can't be bothered arsing about with photoshop.
I hope you all had a great work day. I did.
-
-
Vlad. You have requested my opinion on particular studie. There is several reasons why I will not do it. A) in order to write the analysis one have to read all careful, which taking a lot of time. for me is no reason to spend this a lot of time. B) if I would agree to discuss this studies it will distract the original idea of this post, which I thought and mistakenly, is to learn from mistakes, and to establish some norms of professional discussions at this site C) after you post reply to me , Michael and to other participants I suddenly felt that am participating in mentally unhealthy discussion.
Please forgive me but I'm sharing what I am feeling. Yours Style of writing is absolutel like Christopher’s only additional to discussion title :”So,is the wolf pack satisfied?”
You more than 1 time stated. “He is gone” “ He won't be back this time - I'm sure of it. I've said that I've bailed before and I've lied, but I don't think he's kidding.” What a drama.
Now I learned that he did upset and have irritated a lot of people. Maybe he is a problem and not the other people ????? Maybe he did something very wrong????? I was thinking what I could do in order to avoid my arguments with Christopher, now I know that nothing I could do.
But the most terrible things that shouldn't have never happened, you again exactly like Christopher created negative energy of arguments and not a professional discussion.
I just felt like Christopher using name of Vlad , playing this mentally compromised game.
In this game I am not a participant.
Vlad said:
I believe that no one knows everything about science and how it needs to be viewed, research, energy work. And certainly not me know everything, and never claimed it.
Cool. I'm glad we can both agree that there is no authority when it comes to science. It's one of the greatest aspects of it in my opinion. I don't like to label myself a skeptic, but I do like Shermer's reference to the authority issue and other item's in the baloney list. (which I'm not looking for comment on - I'm just thinking that people might find it interesting)
meta-analysis is very useful for this, for other stuff, whatever. Instead you attacked me
I'm sorry that it seemed like an attack and it was impulsive of me to react that way. I should have said that I disagree, but when you said that grant money should not be given to such studies, it hit a nerve. I apologize if it seemed like an attack. The other reason it hit a nerve is that it seemed to be an attempt to discredit Chris' work. His meta-analysis is only part of what he does regarding massage therapy research and if people had viewed him as someone they could learn from (he has repeatedly said that he is not an expert on massage but he does know a lot about research methods) then maybe everything could have been different. I know that you know about the different methodologies, but I'd guess that most massage therapists do not. So, anyway, he's gone now, so having him as a resource for that is out of the picture anyway. But - apologies for the attack. I reacted too fast.
on my end I really very much regret that all went this way . I really do. But in no way it have to be blamed on me mentioning sick wolf. I hope you will agree with me.
Apricot and the New York times study have been given ample disk space. They've both jumped the shark - it gets a bit tiresome when the same old arguments kept coming up again and again. I think we can both agree that they should be put to rest.
I never slammed you and call you any names. If I'm wrong than direct me.Vlad, Discussion is not about:” "Who's gotta win" took over.”
My comment wasn't really directed at *you* per say. I was called something by someone and it was a bit of a slam, but since I'm not 12, I'm going to go on about it. And the "who's gotta win" wasn't necessarily directed at you either, but to me it seemed that the thread in question had turned into a contest. But it doesn't really matter now and it's all under the bridge.
sorry couldn't see it and don't know if this really relate to our discussion.
That video was meant as just a light-hearted entry and nothing else - just to change the tone.
I've had a long day at work and I'm a bit tired, but there is something I wanted your opinion on, Boris. Since you seem to value external validity and you think that a meta-analysis is a waste of grant money and I *think* you liked the wolf study because it took the human element out of the picture on the receiving end, what is your opinion on this study, which was funded by tax money (from NCCAM). I had asked what people thought of it before and no one an opinion on it, but since you've been involved in research - what's your assessment of it?
Thanks.
-
-
Hey Boris,
No problem and I totally understand the *I don't like drama* sentiment.
Thanks for telling me that I write like Chris. I'll actually take that as a compliment since I like his writing style. I can really tell you that I'm not him though. But if you feel like this is all a negative head game, then I can see why you'd not want to give input.
Cheers.
© 2024 Created by ABMP.
Powered by
